Share this story

While sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk remarkably over the past few decades, sea ice around Antarctica has been dancing to the beat of a different drum. You might expect that as the world warms, sea ice would dwindle no matter which end of the planet it’s on, but the two regions are quite different.

Further Reading

While the North Pole sits in an ocean surrounded by land, the South Pole is in a continent surrounded by water. Antarctic sea ice grows outward from the coast, aided by the isolating winds that encircle the continent and carry frigid, inland air that pushes the ice around. So even as warmer water reaches under the floating ice shelves of Antarctica’s glaciers, persistently eating away at them, the growth of winter sea ice is more closely tied to wind patterns.

Climate models project a big decline in Arctic sea ice, with the end of summer becoming essentially sea-ice-free within a few decades at the current rate of warming. But in Antarctica, the models project smaller long-term declines.

In reality, Arctic sea ice extent has so far dropped faster than the model projections. Antarctic sea ice, however, has grown a bit since satellite monitoring started in 1979 (though not by enough to offset the Arctic loss). Between 2000 and 2014, that growth picked up speed—the same time period over which the growth in global average surface temperatures temporarily slowed due to a series of La Niña years in the Pacific.

The annual cycle of Antarctic sea ice. The record winter maximum was set in 2014, shown in yellow, with the 1981-2010 average in black.

As researchers work to understand what was controlling the behavior of the Antarctic sea ice, hypotheses have focused on changes in the winds that control ice extent. One idea, for example, was that ultraviolet radiation coming through the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica was altering atmospheric circulation. That has since been ruled out as a large factor, but the spatial pattern of sea ice extent change in the 2000s hinted that the La Niña conditions in the Pacific might be responsible.

A group of researchers led by Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research tested this hypothesis by examining spatial patterns of air pressure and surface winds. Looking back at weather data, they saw that the major low pressure center that inhabits the Amundsen Sea region deepened in the 2000s. That brings stronger winds from the continent over the Ross Sea, which is where most of the growth in sea ice extent took place. The big question is why this low pressure center, known as the Amundsen Sea Low, went even lower.

To explore this, the researchers first looked for correlations with recorded conditions elsewhere. They found that precipitation along the equator in the eastern Pacific was strongly linked to the Amundsen Sea Low—less precipitation in the Pacific means lower pressure over the Amundsen. That’s not a random correlation. The convection that causes precipitation moves heat upward into the atmosphere, and the influence of this on atmospheric circulation propagates all the way to Antarctica.

A La Niña event consists of colder surface water along the eastern equatorial Pacific, and colder water leads to less convection and precipitation. So the La Niñas of the 2000s should produce lower air pressure in the Amundsen Sea. Keeping track of the dominoes here, you can trace them from the La Niñas through enhanced southerly winds to growing sea ice in the Ross Sea.

There was also a weaker correlation with precipitation over the tropical Atlantic, with higher precipitation leading to lower air pressure in the Amundsen Sea this time. This connection had the biggest impact in March, April, and May, which happens to be the season that saw most of the Antarctic sea ice extent growth in the 1980s and '90s.

To evaluate the importance of these correlations, the researchers employed a climate model simulation run with the subdued eastern equatorial Pacific convection of the 2000s. The simulated Amundsen Sea low pressure center behaved much like the real one did over that time period. Another simulation run with stronger convection over the warm tropical Atlantic ocean also strengthened the Amundsen Sea Low in some seasons but couldn’t explain the observed behavior as well.

Running the same sorts of simulations for the 1980s and 1990s, however, showed that tropical Atlantic water would contribute to sea ice growth in the Ross Sea during the same March/April/May season that jumps out in the observed data. The eastern Pacific, on the other hand, had the opposite influence during this time period, counteracting some of that sea ice growth.

So, the researchers conclude, the variability of the tropical Atlantic was responsible for a significant portion of Antarctica’s slight sea ice growth in the 1980s and '90s. Between 2000 and 2014, the same phase of variability in the equatorial Pacific that impacted global average surface temperatures boosted Antarctic sea ice extent in a bigger way.

In fact, if you looked at climate model simulations run for the last IPCC report, you could pick out ones that happened to have the same phase of natural Pacific variability as the real world did in the 2000s. These runs also simulated increases in Antarctic sea ice extent over that time period. So while the recent growth of Antarctic sea ice is a puzzle that has taken some work to put together, it looks like we have the data we need to make sense out of it.

108 Reader Comments

If one studies the mass extinction events of the past, there is usually a common theme through out...

While the temperatures and conditions on Earth have varied wildly and life managed to flourish and prosper in a wide range of conditions, any time those conditions took a dramatic change, the majority of organisms perished.

The deniers will often mention how temperature and climate change are natural and not man made...The problem with that POV is that even if 100% true, the types of changes we are seeing are dramatic enough to raise all sorts of alarms since, in Earths history, when such dramatic chances have taken place, few species lived on to the next era to tell the tale.

Anyone who spends a solid week studying mass extinction events, geological and biological processes and evolution in general will quickly conclude that the changes we are currently influencing on the environment are already serious and could quickly turn irreversibly fatal.

I wonder if the volume of antarctic has increased or decreased. An increase of surface ice might be hiding a decrease in over all volume if the thickness decreased more rapidly than the surface area increase. That seems kind of a simple question so i am guessing it has already been looked at and they say the ice in the antarctic increased they do mean the volume.

Anyone who spends a solid week studying mass extinction events, geological and biological processes and evolution in general will quickly conclude that the changes we are currently influencing on the environment are already serious and could quickly turn irreversibly fatal.

I'm fairly certain we crossed the line of irreversible fatality a while ago - changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration of the magnitude that we've wrought in a little over a century and the resultant changes in land and ocean temperatures and ocean acidity have previously occurred over the course of millennia, and even on those time-scales were disruptive to most organisms and ecosystems on the planet. We're introducing rates of change orders of magnitude faster than anything nature has previously seen, and the results will be catastrophic.

I wonder if the volume of antarctic has increased or decreased. An increase of surface ice might be hiding a decrease in over all volume if the thickness decreased more rapidly than the surface area increase. That seems kind of a simple question so i am guessing it has already been looked at and they say the ice in the antarctic increased they do mean the volume.

Remember the critical difference between sea ice and land ice here. A miles-thick ice sheet covers the continent—it's shrinking and contributing to sea level rise. Sea ice is just meters-thick floating frozen seawater that forms and melts seasonally, which has no real impact on sea level.

In the Arctic, where it's changing rapidly, the concern is about ecosystems and the trading of sunlight-reflecting ice for sunlight-absorbing open water.

I wonder if the volume of antarctic has increased or decreased. An increase of surface ice might be hiding a decrease in over all volume if the thickness decreased more rapidly than the surface area increase. That seems kind of a simple question so i am guessing it has already been looked at and they say the ice in the antarctic increased they do mean the volume.

Remember the critical difference between sea ice and land ice here. A miles-thick ice sheet covers the continent—it's shrinking and contributing to sea level rise. Sea ice is just meters-thick floating frozen seawater that forms and melts seasonally, which has no real impact on sea level.

In the Arctic, where it's changing rapidly, the concern is about ecosystems and the trading of sunlight-reflecting ice for sunlight-absorbing open water.

First year ice in the Arctic is frozen seawater, but as it turns into multi-year ice the salts leach out somehow and the ice itself turns into "fresh" ice with significantly less salt content than the sea underneath.

on another tangent, one of the problems with the arctic opening up is that you are seeing more and more idiots up there that simply do not belong in those waterways because they are not prepared for the conditions. Just because it is an open water way does not mean there is no ice. Depending on the prevailing winds you can still get blockages that will prevent passage for smaller ships.

And that's where you go wrong. That's not how it works. The projections are averaged from many individual simulations, each of which contain natural variability that is smoothed out in the average. There is signal, and there is noise. The projection shows the signal. If you are complaining that it doesn't match the noise, you're not getting it.

We've probably had this conversation 50 times about global temperature.

Quote:

Changing models to account for changes in precipitation in Atlantic at some times and changes in the Pacific at others makes it come out correct; an increase in sea ice.

So no, that's not what they did. What I said is that if you select the individual simulations (out of the whole pile that was averaged together to form the projection) where the Pacific variability was in the same phase of its oscillation as what happened, you'd see that those models show a sea ice increase.

When they were *investigating the physical mechanisms in the climate system* then, yes, they fiddled with stuff like precipitation to see how it impacted Antarctic sea ice.

The area of sea ice surrounding Antarctica has been a bit of a puzzle. But only a minor one. What happens when CO2 levels hit 500ppm? 600ppm? Because it sure looks to be headed there. I am nearing 60 yo so unlikely to impact me much personally but my concern is for future generations. And not just future generations of humans.

In case you missed it, more Antarctic ice was the result of IPCC projections that are based on a warming climate. Score 1 for the climate change crowd, 0 for you.

From the article:

Quote:

But in Antarctica, the models project smaller long-term declines.

So no, the article doesn't state what you think it does. IPCC predicted small decrease year over year. Changing models to account for changes in precipitation in Atlantic at some times and changes in the Pacific at others makes it come out correct; an increase in sea ice.

Our understanding of what is happening is far from good. Making predictions on a complex system like earth's climate is very difficult.

I know this was in the last paragraph of this story and it's hard to keep concentration that long, but here:

Quote:

In fact, if you looked at climate model simulations run for the last IPCC report, you could pick out ones that happened to have the same phase of natural Pacific variability as the real world did in the 2000s. These runs also simulated increases in Antarctic sea ice extent over that time period. So while the recent growth of Antarctic sea ice is a puzzle that has taken some work to put together, it looks like we have the data we need to make sense out of it.

In case you missed it, more Antarctic ice was the result of IPCC projections that are based on a warming climate. Score 1 for the climate change crowd, 0 for you.

I always run the furnace to cool the house and the A/C to warm it. I learned that from the GW lemmings. Nice trick!

Global warming is the description of a global system with increased thermal energy than the baseline. Where that energy goes is another thing. Local cooling and increased precipitation are not only normal in a warming climate they're expected and predicted by models.

But then again, you don't strike me as interested in the discussion so I'll just go ahead and click ignore.

And that's where you go wrong. That's not how it works. The projections are averaged from many individual simulations, each of which contain natural variability that is smoothed out in the average. There is signal, and there is noise. The projection shows the signal. If you are complaining that it doesn't match the noise, you're not getting it.

We've probably had this conversation 50 times about global temperature.

Quote:

Changing models to account for changes in precipitation in Atlantic at some times and changes in the Pacific at others makes it come out correct; an increase in sea ice.

So no, that's not what they did. What I said is that if you select the individual simulations (out of the whole pile that was averaged together to form the projection) where the Pacific variability was in the same phase of its oscillation as what happened, you'd see that those models show a sea ice increase.

When they were *investigating the physical mechanisms in the climate system* then, yes, they fiddled with stuff like precipitation to see how it impacted Antarctic sea ice.

Agreed. But he was saying this was predicted in IPCC reports. It was not.

Now we see what happens in the real world and scientists use models to understand what happens and they punch ideas and hypothesis into the models to see what makes sense. So they played with model/data to see what might happen and came up with something that works. Our understanding is better, but perhaps not completely correct or masking other factors we don't understand fully.

Quote:

There is signal, and there is noise.

Are you saying that 37 years is noise? What I am saying to Daemonios is climate models have value, but understand them for the tools they are, they aren't oracles and our understanding and predictive powers on such a complex system as Earth's climate isn't good enough to say with much authority that this kind of thing will happen or that beyond generalities. The positive of having an idea of what should happen and why it's not gets us to ask better questions.

How can fossil-fueled global warming result in opposite effects at the two poles?

1. At the south pole, we have a continent surrounded by ocean; at the north pole we have a ocean surrounded by continents. An ocean covered by ice (the Arctic) is somewhat like land covered by ice (the Antarctic), but when the Arctic sea ice contracts, this allows heat and water vapor to exchange between the Arctic ocean and atmosphere - that's the big difference. You also have an albedo effect, since open water absorbs more sunlight than reflective ice - and there's also the melting permafrost effect. Hence, the Arctic amplification of global warming is not seen in the Antarctic.

2. To review the basics: As fossil fuel-sourced CO2 levels rise, the primary warming takes place in the upper troposphere, where the infrared window gets narrower as CO2 increases (infrared light that used to escape to space is instead absorbed and radiated back to earth). This accounts for only 1/3 of the global warming radiative forcing, however.

3. The other 2/3 comes from the water vapor feedback effect; as the temperature rises more water vapor enters the lower troposphere as clear water vapor; and the water vapor carries latent heat energy. This accounts for the increase in extreme weather events, really.

4. However, the long-term energy storage is not in the atmosphere, it's in the oceans, where 80% of the excess heat due to fossil-fueled global warming has accumulated. Since water has a high heat capacity, this results in less temperature change, but the effects are still significant in terms of changing oceanic and atmospheric and oceanic circulation, which strongly effects flood and drought patterns on all of the continents.

5. There's also an ozone effect; ozone also has a warming effect and the ozone hole over Antarctica has a local cooling effect (ozone, unlike CO2 or H2O, warms by absorbing solar UV radiation, rather than earth infrared radiation, so this is more dominant in the southern summer).

Putting all that together, one plausible net effect is that the increased atmospheric water vapor, when it reaches the Antarctic area, is more likely to result in snow precipitation. Snow falling on water can aid in the growth of local sea ice. That's one of the possiblities discussed by NASA, here:

Of course, the only way to deal with these problems is (a) massive renewable energy investment to eliminate fossil fuel use, and (b) massive infrastructure investment to prepare for the inevitable global warming that's already in the pipeline.

I wonder if the volume of antarctic has increased or decreased. An increase of surface ice might be hiding a decrease in over all volume if the thickness decreased more rapidly than the surface area increase. That seems kind of a simple question so i am guessing it has already been looked at and they say the ice in the antarctic increased they do mean the volume.

What was left out of this report, which focused mostly on the pressure zone's influence in creating the ice due to winds off the continent and that pressure zone's correlations with other atmospheric events, was SALINITY and freezing points.

The glaciers in Antarctica are melting, as are the ice shelves, which are mostly composed of fresh water. Sea ice is not. Sea water has a much lower freezing point than fresh water due to the salt in it (about 28 F or -2 C versus 32 F or 0 C for fresh water). But with the addition of billions of tons of fresh water to the area surrounding the antarctic due to that melting, and an ocean area mostly isolated due to currents, keeping the fresh water there longer, the freezing point increases to a higher temperature, allowing more freezing to happen at a higher temperature.

Throw in those increased winds from the low pressure zones that crop the temperature and you get ice forming faster than before, resulting in more of it and more of it lingering until the temperature is above its freezing point.

Another thing to consider is that if you go from a climate with an average temperature of 0 F to 30 F, you've gotten 30 degrees hotter - which is a catastrophic warming in temperature for a climate - but ice will still readily form. Snowfall will likely increase, too, because higher temperatures means more water evaporation and water vapor in the air.

The area of sea ice surrounding Antarctica has been a bit of a puzzle. But only a minor one. What happens when CO2 levels hit 500ppm? 600ppm? Because it sure looks to be headed there. I am nearing 60 yo so unlikely to impact me much personally but my concern is for future generations. And not just future generations of humans.

Well, the rest of the lifeforms probably won't care too much on a grand scale. Species will die out, probably quite a lot, but that's just adapt or die. None of the cataclysmic events over the last 3.5 billion years managed to turn the lights off for life, we puny humans probably won't either. (And if we really really wanted to do it, upping the global temperature and greenhouse gas content is probably among the more mild methods.) We probably won't even succeed in eradicating ourselves with this, just our more advanced societies. I don't think we'll ever make it to Near-Threatened status, let alone Vulnerable. As a species, we are just too capable of adapting, although this adaptability seems to decrease when in larger groups. See also: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/136584/0, in particular living ranges. We'd have to screw up pretty bad to destroy every possible habitat we could occupy.

What this would do is really screw with the whole spreading of life idea. Unintelligent and non-technologically advanced life is rather limited to one planet, it needs some reasonably clever monkeys to spread throughout the solar system (and, hypothetically, beyond). I don't think our global economy and/or society would survive the avalanche of problems that a severe change of climate would bring with it. No technologically advanced societies = no spaceflight = no solar system.

First year ice in the Arctic is frozen seawater, but as it turns into multi-year ice the salts leach out somehow and the ice itself turns into "fresh" ice with significantly less salt content than the sea underneath.

on another tangent, one of the problems with the arctic opening up is that you are seeing more and more idiots up there that simply do not belong in those waterways because they are not prepared for the conditions. Just because it is an open water way does not mean there is no ice. Depending on the prevailing winds you can still get blockages that will prevent passage for smaller ships.

I'd guess that's just from snow accumulating on the ice. Salt water melts ice from underneath. Snow adds fresh water on top.

That's why I thought we'd moved away from calling it global warming and call it climate change instead, to reflect the fact that a more energetic climate (one with more energy trapped within it) may not necessarily lead to warming in all places, but one where weather extremes are more pronounced.

Climate change is not something I follow frequently, but at least in Australia the term global warming is not really used anymore, and I thought it was because of the reason above.

That's why I thought we'd moved away from calling it global warming and call it climate change instead, to reflect the fact that a more energetic climate (one with more energy trapped within it) may not necessarily lead to warming in all places, but one where weather extremes are more pronounced.

Climate change is not something I follow frequently, but at least in Australia the term global warming is not really used anymore, and I thought it was because of the reason above.

The two terms have both been used by the climate research community for decades. Global warming is the cause of, and part of, climate change, but "climate change" also captures the changes in precipitation regimes, growing season length, flooding potential, and so on that accompany warming temperatures. Climate change is indeed a more inclusive term, but it's not a replacement or synonym for global warming.

"Between 2000 and 2014, that growth picked up speed—the same time period over which the growth in global average surface temperatures temporarily slowed due to a series of La Niña years in the Pacific."

"Between 2000 and 2014, that growth picked up speed—the same time period over which the growth in global average surface temperatures temporarily slowed due to a series of La Niña years in the Pacific."

First year ice in the Arctic is frozen seawater, but as it turns into multi-year ice the salts leach out somehow and the ice itself turns into "fresh" ice with significantly less salt content than the sea underneath.

on another tangent, one of the problems with the arctic opening up is that you are seeing more and more idiots up there that simply do not belong in those waterways because they are not prepared for the conditions. Just because it is an open water way does not mean there is no ice. Depending on the prevailing winds you can still get blockages that will prevent passage for smaller ships.

I'd guess that's just from snow accumulating on the ice. Salt water melts ice from underneath. Snow adds fresh water on top.

No, salt is actually excluded during the crystallization of ice, but it's certainly true that snow gets added on top.

That's why I thought we'd moved away from calling it global warming and call it climate change instead, to reflect the fact that a more energetic climate (one with more energy trapped within it) may not necessarily lead to warming in all places, but one where weather extremes are more pronounced.

Nobody did that, though. In fact, the IPCC got its name (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) back in 1988.

The models do account for ENSO, and when those models align with events that unfold in the real world, they have good predictive power. This finding is one example, and here is another. So we have already demonstrated that models which get ENSO patterns right also predict features of the climate more accurately.

The underlying problem is that it may be physically impossible to predict when El Nino will flip and how strong it will go, beyond a few months out. We may not be able to model ENSO years into the future, on a fundamental level it could very well be something humans just cannot do. Nobody realistically expects this kind of future-scrying from the models. So the models are run with a variety of ENSO conditions going forward, which (over long periods of ENSO ups and downs) match the average of ENSO activity. Because that's actually what you're looking for when talking about clmate: weather averaged over decades, not specific years in some kind of forecast.

So you may want to park the snark and keep your mouth shut, unless it's to ask a question politely. Because you clearly don't understand what's being discussed, and you are in no position to refute any of it.

serious question. what would happen is we could absorb a large amount of the sun's energy before it hits the Earth by way of a enormous solar array in space, i know it's not possible at the present time but in a few years/decades it could become possible, would the increased electricity usage on the Earth still contribute to climatic change (note in this assumption there is such a overabundance of electrical power that all power stations were shut down and all transport is based on electricity)would the heat generated by the usage and transfer of this power still contribute to climatic change?

serious question. what would happen is we could absorb a large amount of the sun's energy before it hits the Earth by way of a enormous solar array in space, i know it's not possible at the present time but in a few years/decades it could become possible, would the increased electricity usage on the Earth still contribute to climatic change (note in this assumption there is such a overabundance of electrical power that all power stations were shut down and all transport is based on electricity)would the heat generated by the usage and transfer of this power still contribute to climatic change?

Yes, the energy beamed to earth would heat the earth, but maybe less the the sunlight itself would heat the earth. The albedo of the earth is about 30% - it reflects about 30% of the sunlight striking it (averaged over the entire planet over the entire year). The remaining 70% is absorbed by the earth and heats it. Now if you block that sunlight with a big solar panel and transmit the captured solar power to earth with 70% overall efficiency, you will have no net effect. Same amount of energy going to the earth. If you do it with less the 70% efficiency you will be reducing the energy striking the earth and so cooling it.

Now, if you can shut down fossil-fuel burning power plants because you're collecting all this solar power, then the CO2 starts decreasing and the greenhouse warming lessens. As I recall (don't feel like looking it up at the moment), if you could convert the solar energy striking a medium-sized US state to electricity you would equal the entire worlds electricity consumption, and you can shut down the fossil-fuel-burning power plants.

SB

Edit - I should add, the typical efficiency of silicon photovoltaic solar cells is about 20%, while 'exotic' cells can be around 50%. So absent a big breakthrough in solar cells, the efficiency would indeed be less than 70%.

Climate science debunked, all the fools who follow this new religion scrambling to explain away the fact the ice sheets are expanding, all the cold temperatures records, snow fall records have been set in the last 10 years.

Precession of the equinoxes can explain away all the small changes in our world climate

Climate science debunked, all the fools who follow this new religion scrambling to explain away the fact the ice sheets are expanding, all the cold temperatures records, snow fall records have been set in the last 10 years.

Precession of the equinoxes can explain away all the small changes in our world climate

Ice is demonstrably on the way out, and we have far more record highs than lows. Of the sixteen warmest years on record, only the unusually-strong El Nino year of 1998 happened before the year 2000, and it actually ties with an average Nino year (2009). We even see nights heating up faster than days, exactly what you would expect from an enhanced Grenhouse Effect but not from any other mechanism.

Climate science debunked, all the fools who follow this new religion scrambling to explain away the fact the ice sheets are expanding, all the cold temperatures records, snow fall records have been set in the last 10 years.

Precession of the equinoxes can explain away all the small changes in our world climate

Acually, no, they can't. If precession were the culprit, we'd see a cyclical pattern with a period of ~22000 years. But we don't see anything of the kind.

Also, orbital changes occur over periods of many thousands of years; the changes we're seeing are taking place over a less than a couple of centuries.

Worst of all, theories that tie climate to orbital mechanics all predict that earth should be deep in a cooling phase at present. The current pronounced warming completely contradicts those models, and therefore must have another cause. You know, like increased CO2.

And we're not talking about "small changes" here. We're talking about large changes.

Imagine a snowman melting. As it gets shorter, the puddle around it grows in width.

The South Pole is losing a few hundred giga-tons of ice mass every year. During summer, as the land ice melts, it dumps rivers of cold, fresh water into the oceans nearby. This decrease in salinity increases the size of the freeze every winter.

This paper covers a bunch of 2nd order adjustments to that fundamental intuitive reality.

If you want to see stunning video of the yearly melt & freeze, BBC's "Frozen Planet" with David Attenborough is absolutely phenomenal.

Climate science debunked, all the fools who follow this new religion scrambling to explain away the fact the ice sheets are expanding, all the cold temperatures records, snow fall records have been set in the last 10 years.

Precession of the equinoxes can explain away all the small changes in our world climate

ProTip: You need to work up to a statement like that. Showing your hand too early is not am effective way to troll. Subtlety is the way to go, then you get more people responding and wasting their time instead of hitting the block but...

Climate science debunked, all the fools who follow this new religion scrambling to explain away the fact the ice sheets are expanding, all the cold temperatures records, snow fall records have been set in the last 10 years.

Precession of the equinoxes can explain away all the small changes in our world climate

Ice is demonstrably on the way out, and we have far more record highs than lows. Of the sixteen warmest years on record, only the unusually-strong El Nino year of 1998 happened before the year 2000, and it actually ties with an average Nino year (2009). We even see nights heating up faster than days, exactly what you would expect from an enhanced Grenhouse Effect but not from any other mechanism.

What I love about articles like these is that when global warming (oh, sorry let me correct that: climate change) predictions are wrong, there is then this convoluted but relatively simple explaination for it. It's like a scientific facepalm and "Ohhhh, of course - why didn't we think of sea currents? Ha!".

Nothing to see here folks.

Then, should anyone challenge our science became religion of Climate Change, the Faithful harass, belittle, and condemn while shrill cries erupt if there is any of the same given back in kind to them.

Can we not admit the possibility that all these "corrections"Mean that human caused climate change isn't a fully baked theory yet? And maybe, just maybe, it's wrong?

You know what? I don't have the patience for idiots like you. But I'll try.

This is not a "correction". This is research and explanation of a small puzzle that was unexplained.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (that's the correct term) is a scientific fact at this point, and like most scientific theories, we are always learning new things and refining the theory. See also: Gravity.